Re: Very long "WHERE" list.

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1089417913.117742_at_yasure...
> Mikito Harakiri wrote:
> > "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> > news:1089413739.39227_at_yasure...
> > No, it is not a job of a server to tell the client that his SQL query is
> > stupid. Oracle never raizes an exception when a user submits a statement
> > that has 20 tables with no join condition (Cartesian Product). It humbly
> > tries to execute the statement (and fails at runtime).
> >
> > Handling long in-list is not something terribly difficult to implement.
And
> > it would save user some time when he naturally would invent gimmics like
> > splitting long list into smaller pieces and concateneted predicates with
OR
> > condition.
> >
> > In general, ad-hock limitations like "the list can't be bigger than 1000
> > elements" (which oracle generously spiced its implementation) look
> > ridiculous.
>
> When you get into a car do you expect the car to tell you that you are
> too drunk to drive?
>
> If you walked into a hospital surgical theatre would you expect the
> scalpel to tell you that you are wholly unqualified to be a surgeon?
>
> Why is it the databases responsibility to tell you that you don't
> understand how to design and implement a relational design?
>
> Why is it Oracle's responsibility to tell you that you should be
> flipping burgers not bytes?

I don't understand. Did you switch sides, or is there some sarcasm that I'm missing?

Plain and simple. Oracle responsibility is to implement what users want. It appears that they want long in-list. Now, please enlighten me why list of 1, 10, and 100 elements is OK, but list of 1000 elements is not?

According to some twisted logic, an equivalent query splitting list of 1000 elements into smaller list and concatenating them is perfectly legal to execute. If you are in denial, then please be concistent and don't allow it as well. Received on Fri Jul 09 2004 - 19:19:53 CDT